Per B Ravichandran: The present appeal is against order dated 8.5.2015 of Commissioner of Customs (Gen) New Delhi revoking the CHA license of the appellant. The appellant is a licensed Custom House Agent (Customs Broker) who during course of his business filed a Bill of Entry on 4.9.12 on behalf of one M/s. Avhyuvaya Impex for clearance of imported cookware sets. Subsequently upon investigation in connection with another import made by the said importer it was revealed that the importer was not found existing at the given address as per IEC. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for revocation of CHA license through show cause notice dated 27.3.2014. Earlier the license was suspended on 20.12.2013 and the suspension was later revoked on 19.2.2014. After proceedings under CBLR, 2013 in pursuance of show cause notice dated 27.3.2014, the impugned order was issued revoking the license of appellant.
2. The impugned order is being challenged on various following grounds:
a) The Bill of Entry was filed on 4.9.2012 . License was revoked on 8.5.2015. Apart from long delay there is no merit in the order.
b) The appellant followed the prescribed procedure regarding accepting an assignment from importer. The documents like IEC code, PAN details were verified as per official websites. Bank Account details of the importer and electricity Bill also reflect the address of the importer.
c) There is no violation in respect of Bill of Entry processed by the appellant for this importer. The appellant can not be penalized for violation, if any, in other consignments imported by the same importer handled by other CHAs.
d) The time limits prescribed under CBLR,2013 for completion of various stages of proceedings have not been followed in this case. The impugned order is without jurisdiction on this ground alone. Case laws relied on in support of this plea.
3. Learned AR contested the appeal by reiterating the findings of the original authority.
4. We have heard both the sides and examined appeal records. The license of the appellant stands revoked only on the ground that they have failed in their obligation of verifying the identity of his client and their existence in the given address. The admitted facts of the case are that the importers details as available in IEC, PAN Cards, Bank Account and electricity have been checked by the appellant. No physical verification of importers premises is mandated in the Regulations nor it is a general requirement as per business practice. No violations have been noticed in respect of transactions with Customs with reference to consignment cleared through the appellants. As such the order of revocation of license, only on the ground that on later verification the importer was not found in the indicated premises, is not justifiable.
5. We also note that show cause notice under CBLR, 2013 was issued on 27.3.2014. The impugned order was issued on 8.5.2015. On examining the enquiry report submitted on 26.5.2014, we find the time limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR,2013 have not been adhered to in this case. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable on this ground also. We also rely on the decisions of Honble Madras High Court in AM Ahamed & Co. [2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad)] and of Tribunal in Lohia Travels and Cargo [2015-TIOL-2467-CESTAT-DEL].
6. Considering the above discussion and analysis, we find the impugned is not legally sustainable and accordingly set aside the same. The appeal is allowed. (operative part of the order pronounced in the open court ) ( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial) ( B Ravichandran ) Member (Technical)